Is the future FF35?

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Tom,

I am interested to see how well the new sensors cope with tungsten light. It's really not clear what ISO will be usable, Red One is not renowned for its low light performance.

I really won't know until I test one for myself, however the Arri sensor I have seen working in very low light, making the Cooke Pancros @T.2.8 seem a very attractive proposition
.
Stephen

BTW, Stephen, I am not talking about any specific camera. We have no idea what Monstro will be like. I'm only talking in general about digital cinema cams at FF35, using general trends in terms of resolution, RAW, sensitivity, etc.

Shawn, my point was to counter the assertion that DPs don't want to shoot on large formats.

 

[Stephen Williams]

BTW, Stephen, I am not talking about any specific camera. We have no idea what Monstro will be like. I'm only talking in general about digital cinema cams at FF35, using general trends in terms of resolution, RAW, sensitivity, etc.
.

Hi Tom,

AFAIK Red is the only company going down the FF35 route.

I would rather have a 3.5k Monstro in S35 for half the price of the new Arri, spend the saving on some Cooke Pancros.

Best Stephen

 

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Tom,

AFAIK Red is the only company going down the FF35 route.

Not for long.

I would rather have a 3.5k Monstro in S35 for half the price of the new Arri, spend the saving on some Cooke Pancros.

Best Stephen

Good point. That would be a sweet spot for 2K and 1080p production, without a doubt. BTW, Stephen, are you on Twitter? I think your witticisms and comments would find a good home in that format. Most of your posts are just about the right length for Twitter. :001_cool:

 

[Daniel Browning]

You're very welcome, Hans.

But... A SI2K (2/3 sensor) at 2K, 24p, 1/48, 50mm T/2.8, ISO 160 bares less noise than the RED ONE at 4K, 24p, 1/48, 100mm T/5.6, ISO 640 full debayer, downscaled to 2K.

There are two possible explanations for what you saw: software or sensor. If the raw conversion or post processing was different, it may had caused the comparison to be inaccurate. For example, if one clipped blacks at 7 stops below white, had low saturation, a contrasty tone curve, noise reduction, and no sharpening, then it would look less noisy than one that clipped blacks at 10 stops below white, high saturation, a low-contrast tone curve, no NR, and high sharpening. That would be a difference in software. Ideally, we'd be able to convert both cameras with the same software to rule out software differences (or at least confine them to a smaller space), but RED does not allow just anyone to have full access to their raw files. Most software has to go through the SDK.

That is one good reason why general conclusions about sensor size are more easily made through analysis of still cameras: it's much easier to get true raw (uncompressed) files, and it's possible to apply raw conversions with precise equality, and even see the source code of the raw converter itself. Those are the kinds of conditions that I base my position on.

If it was not caused by a difference in software, then the other explanation is a difference in camera hardware performance (from the sensor to the ADC). It would mean the SI-2K sensor itself had higher performance "per area". In other words, if you took away the size advantage of the RED ONE, by using it in 2K mode, then the SI-2K would have less noise. There is, of course, a small size (but nontrivial) size difference between the two:

SI-2K 16:9: 10.24x5.76mm
RED ONE in 2K 16:9: 11.1x6.2mm

Hope that helps.

Perhaps I totally mislead but I must assume that your equation does work for windowing a sensor but not necessarily work for different sensor sizes.

It does work for different sensor sizes, but if you introduce a difference in software or sensor performance (per area), then your mileage may vary.

As a drama format for movies/pro crews with professional, yet often technically impatient, directors and actors who are going to tire of being locked down on their marks and takes being blown for focus reasons, FF35 is going to be a much tougher sell.

Well, the cine lens availability is the main issue, but aside from that there is no focus problem, as I've explained earlier in the thread. When the light is limited, FF35 will not offer an *advantage* in noise (over S35), but it will offer at least the same level of performance when used at the same DOF. It is not up to chance or guessing. FF35 sensors have been around for many years, and its simple and straightforward to verify what I'm saying.

Bottom Line? S35 sized-neg will be technically more manageable and cost less to shoot generally and that's where the decisions will often be made - in the budget department.

Not so. If S35 costs less than FF35, it will only be because the sensor is cheaper. But that is usually only a small part of the total budget. Part of the reason why MP lenses cost so much is that they are T/1.3. With FF35, you can get the exact same noise level with FF35 T/2 cine lenses (if they existed), and they would be much cheaper to produce (for the same level of quality).

The reasons there are so many S35 cine lenses is because sensor (actually "film") size used to be more expensive than the lenses. In digital, the reverse is true. Since FF35 lenses are less expensive to produce for the same level of quality, it will actually turn out cheaper, when cine lens makers get around to building them in the same quantities (hopefully in my lifetime).

Please take in account that the bigger the sensor the bigger the lens,

OK, now that we have dealt with DOF, noise, and diffraction, let's take on lens size. This one is much trickier, because every lens design tends to be unique. But if you if assume the exact same lens design, then you find that larger formats do not, in fact, have heavier lenses.

For example, compare the 300mm f/2 lens on Nikon FX (FF35), which has the same angle of view as 200mm f/2 on Nikon APS-C (~S35):

Nikon 200mm f/2 - 6.4 pounds
Nikon 300mm f/2 - 16.6 pounds
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 - 6.3 pounds

Then consider that you only need 300mm f/3 to get the same DOF, diffraction, and light gathering power as the 200mm f/2 on ASP-C. The 300 f/2.8 has the same weight!

Here's another example, again with Nikon (because their crop factor of 1.5X just happens to align very closely with their lens selection):

Nikon 400mm f/2.8 on DX (similar to S35) - 10.2 pounds
Nikon 600mm f/4 on FF35 - 11.2 pounds

Here we see it is 10% heavier, but not significantly. (The difference may be due in part to the fact that the 600mm only needs to be f/4.2, not f/4.0, to get the same DOF, light, diffraction, etc.)

The reason why I'm comparing these expensive superteles is because they have optical designs that are similar. When you compare other focal lengths, it is very hard to find a lens in one format (e.g. S35) that has the same design (just scaled up) for another format.

It's true, of course, that larger-format lenses *tend* to be heavier, but that's because they tend to have the same f-number. And as established, they don't need to have the same f-number in order to get the same results.

...especially if we talk about cine zooms which have all the known issues still zooms have ironed out such as no breathing, no ramping and maintaining focus throughout the range. A S35 10-1 zoom is above 5 Kilos. A similar zoom for FF35 will be even bigger.

I disagree. If you scale the f-number of the lens by the crop factor, then it will come out at the same weight (but probably be cheaper and/or have less aberrations).

For example, take the Angenieux Optimo 17-80 T/2.2 on the RED ONE. To get the same angle of view, depth of field, light gathering capability, and diffraction on FF35, you would need an Angeniuex Optimo 27-128 T/3.5. If they built such a lens, it would have the same weight.

I'm not dissing FF35, on the contrary, but for the average film production handling S35mm is challenging enough.

Four down. Keep 'em coming.

By lighting to T4 or greater, it's very expensive to do & the look often suffers IMO.

But you don't have to light to T4. FF35 with a dark exposure gives you the same amount of noise as S35 with a normal exposure. This fact is very easy to prove to yourself with a simple experiment using any raw camera, such as a DSLR or even RED ONE:

Take picture A with whatever settings you want. It will simulate the smaller format. For example:

• Focal length = L (e.g. 50mm)
• F-number = N (e.g. 2.8).
• ISO = I (e.g. 100)

Then decide on the crop factor that you want to simulate. For example, RED ONE 4K -> FF35 is a crop factor of 1.6X. And take a second picture with the same camera in the same position with the same focus distance and same lighting:

• Simulated crop factor C (e.g. 1.6X)
• Focal length of L * C (e.g. 50mm * 1.6 = 80mm)
• F-number of N * C (e.g. 2.8 * 1.6 = f/4.5)
• ISO of I * C^2 (e.g. 100 * 1.6^2 = ISO 250)

Now you have one picture at 50mm f/2.8 ISO 100 and another at 80mm f/4.5 ISO 250. Now:

• Apply the exact same raw conversion and post processing to both photos
• Crop Picture A by the crop factor.
• This will cause both pictures to have the exact same field of view
• Now you can compare noise, DOF, diffraction, etc. in both pictures.

What you will find is that they are the same. Again, this simple experiment can be done by anyone with a single raw digital camera. The sensor technology is the exact same, so we know that isn't a factor.

Most people who have experience with multiple format sizes know that ISO 400 on a small format (e.g. Super-8) is noisy/grainy, whereas ISO 400 on a large format (e.g. Vista Vision) is not. But they don't realize that low ISO on a small size (e.g. ISO 50 on Super 8) can match high ISO on another format (e.g. higher ISO on Super 16).

I think once people try FF35 & get burnt they will go back to S35 very quickly. Been shooting interviews with a 5DMK II, even with people seated it's a nightmare, looking forward to a 7D, I wont use a 5D again.

There are plenty of reasons to hate the 5D2, but the DOF is not one of them. You are not going to have *any* DOF advantage, at all, by switching to the 7D. As explained above, you can just stop down and increase the ISO on the 5D2.

I don't dispute the option of FF35 is wonderful - I say shoot FF35 if you want. Hell, shoot Billboard size neg if it twists your top - knock yourselves out - but why do people act with such evangelical partisanship for technology?

I don't know if some of that is directed at me or not, but I will explain why I participated in this thread: I hate myths. The idea that smaller formats have an advantage in deep DOF, diffraction, noise, etc. is nonsense. I take efforts to share the facts so that misinformation might be reduced.

 

[James T Mather]

I don't know if some of that is directed at me or not, but I will explain why I participated in this thread: I hate myths. The idea that smaller formats have an advantage in deep DOF, diffraction, noise, etc. is nonsense. I take efforts to share the facts so that misinformation might be reduced.

Daniel - none of my posts were directed at you - However, since you mention it. I hate myths too.

What you are suggesting in the above sentence however regarding smaller "formats having advantages being nonsense", is not facts but your opinion - which is fine, you are entitled to express it. But it is your opinion relating to your desired shooting situation and result.

To wit: A formats advantage is purpose dependent - Deep DOF etc is, possibly an advantage if you are an embedded documentary maker hitting Baghdad with the first wave where mobility, robustness and survival is paramount and focus pulling is a secondary requirement - low bandwidth etc for satellite uplink is possibly a nice ancillary benefit in the same situation with smaller files. The formats advantages are related to the situation and desired result.

I am expressing the same opinion - for my situation as a working cameraman - simply having a bigger neg is not always the best thing despite the zealous opinion of some that no other format will do. It's a little childish to me - like Manchester United is a better football team than Liverpool etc and then saying I told you so when they win the world cup as if that proves anything (had they lost their opinion would have changed little) - I think people often make emotional decisions which they then back up with argument, not the other way around.

In short: To each his own, whatever rocks your boat. Live and let live.

MP lenses cost so much is that they are T/1.3. With FF35, you can get the exact same noise level with FF35 T/2 cine lenses (if they existed), and they would be much cheaper to produce (for the same level of quality).

I'm sorry to say this sentence seems nonsensical to me - you would have the same level of quality from a nonexistent lens as a Master Prime at double the stop, which, despite the fact that must now be manufactured to cover a much larger area would be a much cheaper lens to produce (if it existed). (?) I don't know where you are getting your information from but this doesn't seem to include many facts either. I understand linearity but this presupposes your lighting will be on an 18% card and no other factors will exist - for example items close to clipping in the frame or near drop off (very dark actors etc) - In the vacuum of a forum it is fine but out in the world of shooting means little. It is again your opinion and that is just fine - you are entitled and welcome to express it.



I wish you all the very best - whatever format you are shooting on from Super 8 to Imax.

 

[Daniel Browning]

What you are suggesting in the above sentence however regarding smaller "formats having advantages being nonsense", is not facts but your opinion - which is fine, you are entitled to express it.

No, it is a fact. If I said the moon had cracked in two, you could go outside at night and verify for yourself to see whether it is true or not. In the same exact way, what I have said about format sizes are also facts, and can be independantly verified through experiment and direct observation by anyone who is willing to spend the time to take two simple photos.

We're not talking about something that requires special access to expensive equipment. You can verify that it is a fact with just a raw digital camera, computer, and some free software.

But it is your opinion relating to your desired shooting situation and result.

It applies to all shooting situations.

To wit: A formats advantage is purpose dependent - Deep DOF etc is, possibly an advantage if you are an embedded documentary maker hitting Baghdad with the first wave where mobility, robustness and survival is paramount and focus pulling is a secondary requirement

Right. But since FF35 can hit the exact same DOF as S35, and since S35 can hit the exact same DOF as 2/3", there is no "DOF advantage" to the smaller format.

low bandwidth etc for satellite uplink is possibly a nice ancillary benefit in the same situation with smaller files.

File size! OK, now we've done DOF, light/noise, diffraction, and lens weight. Time to get on to file size! (How far down does this rabbit hole go?)

File size is not necessarily related to format size. If larger formats had larger pixels, the file size would be the exact same. But if the larger format has more pixels instead of larger pixels, it can *still* have the same file size. Here's how: compression. If you compress 4K into 28 MB/s and 2K into 28 MB/s, you might think the 4K is worse, but that is wrong. If you compare 100% crop, yes, it's worse. But if you compare them at the same size (e.g. downsample 4K to 2K), then they are the same.

Of course, if you want the benefit of even higher quality, then you have to use larger files. But at least you know that you can keep the *same* file size for the *same* level of quality. (Just as you can keep the same DOF, noise, and diffraction.)

There are a lot of myths. Some of them are hard to bust. For example, it's hard to prove that diffraction does not get worse with smaller pixels, since you have to have two cameras with different pixels sizes. But the "small format DOF advantage" myth is easy! All you need is one raw camera and two pictures. Anyone can verify it for themselves if they just take a few minutes.

I'm sorry to say this sentence seems nonsensical to me - you would have the same level of quality from a nonexistent lens as a Master Prime at double the stop, which, despite the fact that must now be manufactured to cover a much larger area would be a much cheaper lens to produce (if it existed). (?) I don't know where you are getting your information from but this doesn't seem to include many facts either.

First, did you consider focal lengths that are longer than the crop factor multiplied by format diagonal? In those cases you get the larger image circle "for free". I'm probably wrong about wider focal lengths. Second, this point is really tangential to the entire post. It's a side dish, not the main course. Third, I am happy to take your word for it that I am mistaken. I only know a little optics from what I've read in books, not real experience, so I may have misapplied some information. This is one of those things that is hard to just go out and verify through direct experiment (for me, at least).

I understand linearity but this presupposes your lighting will be on an 18% card and no other factors will exist

No, the lighting can be on anything, and all other factors are welcome, as long as they are equal between both formats.

- for example items close to clipping in the frame or near drop off (very dark actors etc) -

Clipping will be the same in the larger format if it has the same total number of pixels (i.e. much larger pixels). If the number of pixels is higher (e.g. same-size pixels), then the clipping will be reduced in the larger format, which will be one nice advantage in low light.

Near drop off (dark actors) will have the same noise under the conditions I described. It is the part of the image that gets the highest contribution from sensor read noise, and therefore is the most sensitive to variations in sensor technology. If you compare a new, high-tech small sensor (e.g. Canon 7D) to an old, low-tech large sensor (e.g. Canon 5D classic), the decrease in read noise can more than make up for the difference in size. But that has nothing to do with format size per se, only with technology. Everyone knows that high tech beats low tech. But if you equalize the technology variable and look at the difference in format size by itself, you draw the conclusions that I have.

In the vacuum of a forum it is fine but out in the world of shooting means little.

Take 30 minutes to go out in the real world and do the experiment I described, then join us back here in the vacuum and tell me if it means anything or not.

 

[James T Mather]

Okay Daniel Best of luck - you're a fun guy

/ignore

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

As it is now, RED has not announced an intention to create a S35 Monstro chip, just Mysterium-X. I think that's a mistake.

Stephen

not necessarily true, Jarred posted today. "you will have to wait and see"

 

[Shawn Nelson]

not necessarily true, Jarred posted today. "you will have to wait and see"

Bingo. I think we have to clear all expectations of price and functionality.

 

[David Rasberry]

So here is how I would love to see this aperture business tested.
Cooke 9.3-53 T1.6 S16 lens on RED at 2k
Cooke 18-100 T3 S35 lens on RED at 4k.
Same lens, same iris, S16 version delivers twice the light intensity to half the image circle at the same physical iris. That is a 6dB difference in charge density vs noise floor between 2K and 4K. How is the signal to noise going to be the same?

 

[Daniel Browning]

So here is how I would love to see this aperture business tested.
Cooke 9.3-53 T1.6 S16 lens on RED at 2k
Cooke 18-100 T3 S35 lens on RED at 4k.
Same lens, same iris, S16 version delivers twice the light intensity to half the image circle at the same physical iris.

Sounds great to me. Who's going to do it and post the results? I got the impression that Hans did his own tests already to confirm that it works.

That is a 6dB difference in charge density vs noise floor between 2K and 4K. How is the signal to noise going to be the same?

The SNR will be the same thanks to the fact that random noise adds in quadrature while signal adds linearly.

 

[David Doko]

... With great difficulty! New technology? Cinetape/Panatape? Bah, that stuff is just an electronic tape measure. Focus pullers best tool is still his/her own ability and experience to judge distance spatially and pull accordingly. Not on the monitor and not with any current or foreseeable tech tool.

THAT SAID - I'm really looking forward to see what FF35mm cinematographer brings to the table! Can't wait! Just like anamorphic, there will be many productions who see the added benefits and distinctive look as a way to stand out from the crowd. If the difficulty is worth it, great.

YHow do people pull focus on anamorphic shows right now? Plus, there will also be new technology to aid with focus.

 

[M Most]

But since FF35 can hit the exact same DOF as S35, and since S35 can hit the exact same DOF as 2/3", there is no "DOF advantage" to the smaller format.

Daniel, you're a very smart guy, and I read what you have to say multiple times in order to properly absorb it. But what I have noticed is that a lot of what you say, while true in theory, is not quite as true in practical situations. What you just said above is, in fact, true, but there are other conditions that must be met. At the same camera to subject distance, with the same amount of light, it is not true - and this is often the deciding factor under practical shooting conditions. If you have to swing a lens, and if you have to change the light levels, it's not just a simple swap, as your statement implies it is. Physical conditions often dictate where the camera must be, and in turn, what lens is used. Practical considerations often dictate where the lights are, and how much is required. Going to a deeper stop affects the exposure in a nonlinear way, so at the extremes, the response is not what one gets at a more open stop. So while what you say is true in the literal sense, it also involves other considerations that are sometimes practical and sometimes not. Hence why James and others (myself, Dave Mullen, and some others) have sometimes questioned your conclusions based on practical realities.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Daniel, James is an awesome guy, tons and tons of experience. So while he may not be as technically deep on these particular issues, his knowledge and life long real-world expertise is pretty intense, so it's a bummer to drive him away.

You have an awesome bucket of knowledge here that is going to get buried in this thread. Have you considered making a blog entry, complete with these test photos that you're advocating? It'd be helpful for me to actually see all these bullet points instead of just reading them.

 

[Tom Lowe]

... With great difficulty! New technology? Cinetape/Panatape? Bah, that stuff is just an electronic tape measure. Focus pullers best tool is still his/her own ability and experience to judge distance spatially and pull accordingly. Not on the monitor and not with any current or foreseeable tech tool.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that technology can't fix this. What about a 1080p screen that your focus puller uses a stylus on in conjunction with an advanced autofocus system and motor drive? It's been mentioned and discussed. Jarred has hinted at it. It does makes sense. There is also facial recognition that can track individual faces, even setting focus points like forehead, cheek, nose, eyes, etc. And these will only get better and better.

At some point, even on Epic X at 5K with top-grade glass, the amount of resolution is so great, and your need for ridiculously sharp focus so important, that you are going to want some kind of focus assistance for cinema work.

I'm not an expert on this type of shooting, though, so those are just my measly 2 cents. I know that shooting 5.6K RAW timelapse on my 5D2 with fast L-series glass, there is NO WAY I can focus, even on static landsapes, just by eye, or by a small LCD. I use the 10x zoom feature (similar to 1:1) for every single shot. I don't feel good unless I can confirm focus, because I know that at some point in the post process, I am gong to be pixel peeping the shots at 5.6K. I also know that every time I think I have focus by eye or by LCD, the 10x zoom confirms that I was at least a little bit off!

 

[James T Mather]

Then welcome to the rigours of practical shooting in a pressure cooker environment Tom with unforgiving directors and actors who don't hit marks. Welcome to my hell. All I am saying is that things are more shades of grey than black and White.

Yes Ff35 is great for certain things but there is room for other voices and formats. I suppose if you buy it you've got the option to choose your format by using whatever lens system (s35, s 16 etc) you like.

Shawn. I fully technically understand everything Daniel has said (I have been a working union dp for coming up on 2 decades, own all my equipment including 2 sets of spherical primes, 2 sets of anamorphic lenses, and have shot on all commercially available 35mm cameras and digital systems) - his conclusions are fine in a lab sense but as mentioned by mmost, are only partly applicable in real world shooting. Yes conceptually all formats can reach near infinite depth of field but have costly ramifications in the real world like massive lighting budgets etc. In short, the argument is theoretical at best. Thanks Shawn for the kind words.

Best to all.

 

[Tom Lowe]

JTM, you already know that I am a longtime fan and supporters of many of your opinions here. The only thing I can really say about FF35 is: "Once you go FF35, you will never go back." Or at least you won't want to go back.

Don't underestimate the boosts in ASA/ISO ratings to be able to compensate for DOF. A year ago, I was pegged out at ISO 800 on my Canon 350D. Now I shoot comfortably at ISO 3200 on my FF35 5D2. I think Drew and some others will confirm this.

 

[David Doko]

Well pulling focus is both a predictive and reactive craft, in both measures. And if some tracking technology would work, it would either have to be instantaneously on the subject and lens focus at the same time without any lag, or it would have be both predictive/reactive as well. I just don't see technology in general being able to do that without considerable AI which doesn't exist yet.

I'm not saying never, but not foreseeable.

Again, the additional difficulty of pulling on anamorphic or the longer FF35 lenses (and other issues) needs to be weighed against the benefits that the format will bring. It may well be worth it and more. I'm not at all saying the FF35 isn't a great direction to go.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that technology can't fix this. What about a 1080p screen that your focus puller uses a stylus on in conjunction with an advanced autofocus system and motor drive? It's been mentioned and discussed. Jarred has hinted at it. It does makes sense. There is also facial recognition that can track individual faces, even setting focus points like forehead, cheek, nose, eyes, etc. And these will only get better and better.

At some point, even on Epic X at 5K with top-grade glass, the amount of resolution is so great, and your need for ridiculously sharp focus so important, that you are going to want some kind of focus assistance for cinema work.

I'm not an expert on this type of shooting, though, so those are just my measly 2 cents. I know that shooting 5.6K RAW timelapse on my 5D2 with fast L-series glass, there is NO WAY I can focus, even on static landsapes, just by eye, or by a small LCD. I use the 10x zoom feature (similar to 1:1) for every single shot. I don't feel good unless I can confirm focus, because I know that at some point in the post process, I am gong to be pixel peeping the shots at 5.6K. I also know that every time I think I have focus by eye or by LCD, the 10x zoom confirms that I was at least a little bit off!

 

[Tom Lowe]

It won't be predictive, it will have to be hyper-accurate and smoothly instantaneous, as you say. But that is not beyond the realms of possibility for technology.

 

[Andrew Walker]

JTM, you already know that I am a longtime fan and supporters of many of your opinions here. The only thing I can really say about FF35 is: "Once you go FF35, you will never go back." Or at least you won't want to go back.

Don't underestimate the boosts in ASA/ISO ratings to be able to compensate for DOF. A year ago, I was pegged out at ISO 800 on my Canon 350D. Now I shoot comfortably at ISO 3200 on my FF35 5D2. I think Drew and some others will confirm this.

One of the main reasons I got the 5D2 was for the clean high ISO frames you could get with it. If the FF35 Epics can do the same thing that would be awesome. But being able to shoot at that high of an ISO really does change the way you shoot and what you can shoot. Plus I was really surprised by FF35 on my 5D2. I could never go back to a DSLR that shoots with a cropped sensor. Hopefully soon I can say the same thing about shooting FF35 on the Epic.